[Side note to KHolt -- hey, you DID get something started. Way to go!}
I would agree, but... would you then support, for example, a company saying:
"Sorry, we're not employing you because you're a Christian?"
or
"We're not offering you the job because you're a Republican."??
How about
"We're not serving you, you have children."
Or, as an extreme,
"You can't vote here unless you're willing to pledge allegiance to our cause, in
blood, and sign over your child into slavery."
Not to mention things which may not be 'choices', as such, but aren't readily
changed if at all:
"We won't employ you because you're gay."
"Sorry, we don't allow any members earning less than $250K/year."</i?
You're mixing up things.
Christian? Well, discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of religion is illegal in most of this country. I think it's a law worth discussing, but not here.
Republian? Sure. What's wrong with discriminating on that basis? Who wants to work with Republicans anyhow?
Children? That gets complex, but as a social principle, since society needs children to continue, so the existence of children is a core societal need, society shouldn't accept discrimination against people with children. But should some restaurants be allowed to be adult only? I sure hope so! And some cruises are. And retirement communities. So sure, there are times it is okay to discriminate against people with children. But overall, it's bad for society.
Voting is a whole different thing. Voting for what? In a general election? Of course not. But voting for the next pope? Should definitely be limited to people with certain beliefs. (And who have no children, so the issue of selling them into slavery doesn't arise <g>)
IMO discrimination should only ever be allowed when it's over something
- optional
- not a 'public' good or need
- appropriate to the position, or opportunity, or service being offered.,/i>
I would agree with #s 1 and2. Not sure what 3 involves, so suspend judgment. |
